News of note
Florida Governor Rick Scott says his “personal position” is that only “married couples” should adopt children. Meanwhile, the Congressional Research Service details federal tax benefits for people who adopt children.
An international expert says the state of Vermont could launch a single-payer health system. Meanwhile, Vermont’s 2006 health reforms seem to be covering more people (no data on marital status, however).
A new book says it’s a good idea to delay marriage and parenthood, but fails to question why those acts are equated with adulthood.
The big tax deal shorted singles, again
While I’m on the topic of how your marital status shapes the way you’re affected by major federal legislation – let’s talk taxes! At the end of the year, Congress passed and the President signed a complicated tax package. In covering that news, many media reports mentioned the so-called “marriage penalty.” So let’s get that out of the way first. The Congressional Research Service says
“At all but the lowest and very highest income levels, singles pay higher taxes than married couples. The analysis of the marriage penalty indicates that marriage penalties have largely been eliminated for those without children throughout the middle-income range, but this change has inevitably expanded marriage bonuses. Marriage penalties remain at the high and low income levels and could also apply to those with children, where the penalty or bonus is not very well defined. But by and large, the current system is likely to encourage rather than discourage marriage and favors married couples over singles.”
This CRS report is a brand new update of the 2004 report that was the basis for AtMP’ s original tax policy analysis. If you value this kind of analysis, please donate $30 so I can purchase the new report, read the full detail and update our materials!
Speaking of details, did you know that 56% of taxpayers are unmarried? Due to our lower incomes (simplistically speaking), we paid 27% of all taxes after credits. (I calculated these 2008 figures from IRS data)
The fact that so many unmarried people have relatively low incomes means that we really got the short end of the stick in December’s big tax package. Our friend Shawn Fremstad does a great job of explaining how
some 51 million taxpayers will see their taxes go up in 2011. The vast majority of them—40 million tax units—are low-wage workers with incomes below $35,000. Low-income workers are the only income group that will lose income this year compared to 2010 under the deal.
I agree with Shawn’s suggested solution of “an increase in the EITC for low-wage workers without children.” The EITC, or Earned Income Tax Credit, is often called the U.S.’s biggest anti-poverty program (right up there with Social Security). The excessive impact of marital status on EITC is one policy area where complete ideological opposites can find common ground. I even find myself agreeing with Sam Brownback (and that’s REALLY funny!)
By the way, if you’re thrilled at the thought of further researching marital status & EITC, this student paper from Colgate University has a very nice bibliography and lit review.
2010 was a good year for scholarly papers on marriage and taxes. Puckett could have used our help seeing through the tired “case for marriage,” but I certainly like his conclusion:
The joint return (and special rates for married taxpayers) should be abolished as an incoherent penalty and subsidy of marriage. Joint filing is indefensible as a component of a progressive tax system. Marriage has many benefits, but the benefit most deserving of support is marriage’s connection with parenting. The contemporary reality is that parenting will occur outside of marriage, and parenting has high social benefits and high private costs. Although increased refundable child credits would be the most progressive method of implementing a parenting subsidy, simply retaining head of household status seems more likely.
I couldn’t bring myself to read all of Kornhauser‘s latest article. There’s no debating this, and I choose to see it as a call to action (whether or not that’s what she intended):
The nature of family, marriage, and religion are also important issues in America and the tax debates about the marital unit are an important area in which they are expressed. Consequently, congressional actions and rhetoric regarding the marital unit and marriage penalty—even if primarily symbolic — reaffirm a national commitment to marriage as instrumental to American democracy and tacitly acknowledge a similar importance of religion (which supports marriage).
Repeal healthcare reform? What’s at stake for unmarried people
The national health care reform law that passed last year took some important steps towards getting marital status out of people’s way when they’re trying to access affordable health care. It should not be repealed.
One nice step is that young couples no longer have to put off marriage in order to stay on their parents’ health plans.
A much bigger step is increased coverage for single people with low incomes. Scheduled to start in 2014, people who earn less than $15,000 per year will be eligible for Medicaid in every state. That’s hugely important because Medicaid has primarily been available to low-income mothers and children, with eligibility varying state by state.
Obviously, health care reform affects all of us, for reasons that go far beyond our marital status, and there are many other places you can find information on how it affects seniors, women, businesses, etc. But even if you care only about equality for unmarried people and ending marital status discrimination, you should speak out against repealing health care reform.
(If you’re completely sure the repeal effort is just a publicity stunt that doesn’t matter, then please take a moment to join the call for single payer, the one reform that really takes marital status out of the health care equation.)
Predictions for 2011
If you’re on our email list, you recently saw my hopeful predictions for 2011. Here’s a bit more detail about what they mean and why I think they could come true.
Political candidates in majority-unmarried districts will drop their old “families first” slogans and start campaigning “for every single one of us.” An important use of the decennial Census is to redraw Congressional district lines so that each district contains roughly 1/435th of the population (that’s a simplification, of course). After the 2000 Census, our friends at Unmarried America produced a wonderful list of unmarried majority cities. We already have two volunteers willing to help crunch the latest Census figures, and we already have great feedback about what unmarried voters want candidates to say. We’ve sketched out a plan to find and draw attention to Congressional districts where most adults are unmarried. If you’re good with data and/or publicity, we can use your help to get this off the ground!
Scientists will discover that marital status discrimination is bad for people’s health, urging companies to treat unmarried employees fairly as a way to reduce healthcare costs. A fantastic advisory committee is helping us develop a research framework that could demonstrate the impact of marital status discrimination on public health. Our objective is to build widespread, high-level recognition that correlations between marital status and health outcomes are caused by laws or regulations that use marital status to determine access to healthcare. Demonstrating causality will support AtMP’s position that marital status discrimination in healthcare is a social justice problem to be solved.
Congress will rewrite the welfare law, replacing the 1990′s “marriage-only” preamble with words like: “the most important factor in a child’s upbringing is whether the child is brought up in a loving, healthy, supportive environment.” Those very words are in the preamble of the House bill mentioned in my last post – it gained 39 co-sponsors and supportive feedback from the administration last year. AtMP started advocating these changes a decade ago and we’re committed to seeing it through to success.
Major foundations will give AtMP grants to hire a full-time researcher / organizer to advance these and other projects. For the first time, a well-known LGBT foundation has invited AtMP to request a grant, and an experienced grant writer has volunteered to help me write a most compelling proposal. Wish us luck!
Here at AtMP we’re positively psyched about 2011. Here are some of my hopeful predictions, plus a little bit about why I believe they could come true:
C Political candidates in majority-unmarried districts will drop their old “families first” slogans and start campaigning “for every single one of us.” We already have two volunteers crunching the latest Census figures, and we’ve sketched out a plan to find and draw attention to Congressional districts where most adults are unmarried.
C Scientists will discover that marital status discrimination is bad for people’s health, urging companies to treat unmarried employees fairly as a way to reduce healthcare costs. A fantastic advisory committee is helping us develop a research framework that could demonstrate the impact of marital status discrimination on public health.
C Congress will rewrite the welfare law, replacing the 1990′s “marriage-only” preamble with words like: “the most important factor in a child’s upbringing is whether the child is brought up in a loving, healthy, supportive environment.” Those words were in the preamble of a House bill that gained 39 co-sponsors and supportive feedback from the administration last year. AtMP started advocating these changes a decade ago and we’re committed to seeing it through to success.
C Major foundations will give AtMP grants to hire a full-time researcher / organizer to advance these and other projects. A well-known LGBT foundation has invited AtMP to request a grant, and an experienced grant writer is helping me write a most compelling proposal.
Of course, I’ll announce the results of this work on the Unmarried Blog,
Marriage programs return to federal welfare budget
In the waning days of the year, marriage programs poured on the charm (i.e., lobbied like mad) and got themselves partially reinstated in the federal budget. Congress had not included marriage programs when it funded Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, the umbrella welfare program) from October through December 2010. However, it did include them in the new extension through September 2011, though at only three-quarters of their previous dollar level – $75 million instead of $100 million.
Fatherhood programs got a corresponding increase from $50 to 75 million. From the sidelines, it can be interesting to watch the tug of war between marriage and fatherhood programs. The Obama administration wanted to merge them into one, even bigger, program that would be managed by the states. Our analysis of all that is available here. Congress also seemed to favor programs that help low-income fathers get jobs and stay involved with their kids. A bill called the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (H.R. 2979) was being considered as an alternative to the administration’s proposal. That bill would have to start from scratch in the new Congress.
The extra year of funding will allow Congress (and us) to review the evaluation results for many more marriage programs before deciding whether to include them in the full five-year reauthorization of TANF. Of course, the programs are acutely aware of the importance of demonstrating positive results.
Meet a board member: Kim Fox
I first became interested in the work of the Alternatives to Marriage Project when I was in graduate school and working on my Sociology dissertation entitled, “A Family of One: Work-Life Balance in Single Person Households.” I was intrigued by the notion that people living alone had to struggle with boundaries between their time at work and time at home in ways that was not reflected in the research on work-life conflict among married, partnered and parenting individuals.
My own research showed that people living alone spend more time at work and more time with people outside their households than their peers. Additionally, “live alones” struggle with the line between their own autonomy and their desire for connection to others. Finally, live alones must work to define boundaries between work and home because they do not have partners or children to provide them with external boundaries.
This research topic came directly out of my personal experience as someone who happily lived alone for 10 years and was part of an extended friend group that served as my family and support system. While I now live with my partner, I am still confronted with issues that demonstrate how marital status discrimination impacts my life, from an inability to share health insurance to constant questions on when we will get married.
From the first time I began studying families in Sociology while an undergraduate in college, I recognized that families come in many configurations and I wanted to find ways to advocate for alternative family models. Rather than focusing on one “right” type of relationship or family, I believe that it is important to recognize that carework happens across family forms and all people deserve the right to fulfillment and support no matter their relationship status or style.
AtMP provided me with great resources and interesting discussions when I was merely a quiet member. Now, as a member of the board, I am happy to step up to advocate for equality across families and relationship statuses. My hope is to help others recognize that marriage is not the only way to signify a committed relationship and that people in all relationship and living situations – including living alone – are part of our larger community and deserve the same rights and benefits as married individuals.
Civil unions for different-sex couples
If civil union or something like it were available to you, would you do it? Would you be excited, or shrug? What level of couple registration and rights would satisfy your desire for an alternative to marriage, or are you looking for something completely different? The LGBT community has debated whether to settle for civil union or keep demanding legal recognition for same-sex marriage. Where do different-sex couples and others fit in?
In France, different-sex couples get civil unions at the rate of two for every three marriages. They are quite different from marriage. In Illinois, different-sex partners will soon be eligible for civil union, which will be quite similar to marriage under state law. In eight other states, different-sex couples have access to varying levels of statewide registry and rights. AtMP supporter Mary Ann Vorasky is campaigning to create civil unions that are legally equivalent to marriage nationwide.
AtMP’s board-approved strategy is that marriage-equivalent civil unions are nice but not enough. We don’t want to simply re-name marriage, we want to reconsider the rights and responsibilities now associated with married couples. Some should be eliminated altogether; many should be expanded to cover other forms of adult interdependent relationships.
Thoughts on year-end giving
Last Friday, Jess and Akilah helped me send out over 200 invitations to those of you who gave generously in prior years. To ensure good karma, over the weekend I sat down to do my personal year-end giving. Since I’ve had to fundraise for a living for the past 14 years, I’m especially conscious of the donor experience. I try to be the type (if not size) of donor I’d most like to have on AtMP’s giving roster, and I try to treat AtMP’s donors as well as (or better than) I’m treated by the organizations I donate to.
I’d truly love to hear what works for you. If you’ve given to AtMP, how can we make your giving feel even better? If you haven’t, is it because of something we have or haven’t done?
Here are some things I’ve learned as a donor.
- having a plan really helps. I used the Inspired Philanthropy workbook about 10 years ago and it made my giving process more organized, purposeful and satisfying. Each year I check in with myself, write a few lines about what causes most concern me, and adjust my percentages.
- helping organizations treat me right makes me feel better about them. Simply telling them to address me as Nicky (rather than stuffy ‘Lisa-Nicolle’ or just-not-me ‘Lisa’) encourages me open their letters instead of throwing them away.
- giving online took a huge leap of faith, but really is convenient. I committed to making more of my donations online this year, especially to organizations that use the system that AtMP plans to adopt next year, so I can test it out. As for writing checks, it’s more efficient at the desk than on the bed, for obvious reasons.
- Some of my best donations cost only 44-cents. When I get letters from organizations that don’t interest me, I send them this note: “Thank you for sending me information. I appreciate your work. However, my personal philanthropy is directed elsewhere. Please take me off your mailing list and use your resources to attract other donors.” AtMP has received a few notes like that; while it stings a little, it’s much better than wasting time and being an annoyance.
Calling all number-lovers
The Census Bureau is starting to release lots of new data, plus new tools for finding and using data. AtMP needs volunteers to find and compile the new numbers about people who live alone, live together, live with extended families, etc. If you can help, please contact us! (Hint – this is a great project for students between semesters!)
Today the Census is releasing American Community Survey (ACS) estimates covering a five year period (2005-2009). Think of the ACS as a “long form” questionnaire that is given to a sample of a few hundred thousand people in order to estimate what the whole country probably looks like. While the decennial Census counts everyone’s age, race, and where they live, the ACS estimates details like education, income, whether people were formerly married, whether they’ve had children, etc. And there are many other surveys and estimates too.
Last week the Census used data on births and deaths, international migration and Medicare enrollment to construct estimates of the population that are totally separate from the (still unannounced) results of the 2010 Census. This yielded five different estimates of the number of people resident in the United States, from 305,684,000 to 312,713,000. The Census press release says they really want people to understand “the uncertainty in these figures. The 2010 Census provides the official population count, but demographic analysis provides an honest presentation of alternative estimates.”
In January, American FactFinder gets a total overhaul, which is important because it is our primary tool to access all the new 2010 Census data as well as other key data sets such as the ACS. They’re offering an online video and a tutorial to demonstrate the enhanced features and functions of the new and improved FactFinder, including how to conduct a basic text search, view search results and select a data product to view.
The geek in me is very excited about all this. In September, I attended a Census Bureau presentation for the media and asked whether the five-year or three-year ACS estimates are superior to the most recent one-year estimate. They said that the one-year ACS is as precise as you need to be when you want to describe the nation as a whole; but for smaller areas the three- or five-year figures are more precise. This corrects my previous understanding.
The executive in me needs to know that some smart, reliable AtMP members are ready to help digest all the new info, so we can promptly and accurately update the ever-popular statistics section of our website.
Americans’ varying definitions of family
Book Review: Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family by Brian Powell, Catherine Bolzendahl, Claudia Geist and Lala Carr Steelman
BY JANELLE BRAZINGTON
In their book Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family, the authors Brian Powell, Catherine Bolzendahl, Claudia Geist, and Lala Carr Steelman publish the results of an in-depth study called “Constructing the Family Survey” conducted in both 2003 and 2006 regarding what domestic structures constitute families in America. The study surveyed 712 and 815 Americans, respectively, about their views regarding gay couples, cohabiting couples, gay marriage, gay adoption, the extension of marital/family rights to gay or cohabiting couples, and finally what Americans count as families.
Counted Out begins with the results of the study being divided into three categories—the Exclusionists, Moderates and Inclusionists. Exclusionists hold the most rigid view of family and require marriage, the legal contract between a man and a woman, as the foundation for their definition of family. The Exclusionists’ family may or may not have children. But even with children, their definition of family leaves out unmarried couples or even married same-sex couples. Exclusionists used words relating to the religious and legal aspects of marriage in defining what counts as a family.
In contrast, Moderates will include any combination of adults, but children must be present for the combination to be considered a family. The survey asked a series of closed-ended questions followed by open-ended questions. The Moderates, at times, found that they had conflicting views. Their closed-ended questions revealed one viewpoint, but the open-ended questions where they could talk through their answers without having to choose one option revealed a broader acceptance of varying family systems. Finally, Inclusionists counted all structures as family, but focused on the quality of the relationship. Intimacy, cooperation, love—how the members feel about each other and treat each other—defined a family for Inclusionists regardless of a legal marriage, the presence of children or the gender of the adults in the home.
Correlations in the data were found in levels of education; whether or not people believed the Bible to be the actual word of God, the inspired word of God or a book of fables; in racial differences; and urban vs. rural and/or regional differences. Interestingly enough, having gay friends or relatives had a significant impact on one’s views of what constitutes a family, with many Exclusionists not having any gay friends or family. In addition to analyzing people’s views on what domestic structures count as families, the study also collected data regarding Americans’ views on religion and sexuality, gender and parenting, and changing one’s name as a result of marrying.
While religion and/or the legality of marriage influences many Americans’ opinions on what counts as a family, the authors point out that over the time between the two phases of the study (2003 to 2006), there was a significant decrease in the number of people who hold the Exclusionist viewpoint in a relatively short period of time. And during the opened-ended questions, many respondents revealed their viewpoints as being tied directly to their comfort level with certain words, phrases or concepts. This shift might suggest that as more people are exposed to ways of life and love that are different or foreign to their experiences, people will be more open in what they count as a family.
Counted Out is an in-depth presentation of thoroughly-analyzed data but in an easy-to-read format and language. This book could be used as a text for classroom discussion, a monthly selection for your book club, or an insightful read over your next holiday. While academic in its approach and integrity, Counted Out is an engaging book. Through this presentation of data, we can see a more tolerant and accepting world in our near future. A world where individuals choose their own family structures and these varying structures are respected and accepted in society.
*The term ‘gay’ is used instead of ‘same-sex’ or ‘LGBTQ’ in accordance to the authors’ usage in the text.
Janelle Brazington lives with Matt, her cohabiting partner, in Kansas, where they are raising her daughter.
